Trump-a-Lago Raided?

[BoSoxGal]

Lindsay Graham is threatening (promising?) violence in the streets if his buddy Trump is prosecuted by the DOJ - Georgia too, I’m sure that’s implied.

But last night Lawrence O’Donnell made the point that aside from some few actors engaging in stochastic terrorism and the few hundreds who stormed the Capitol, the vast majority of Republican Americans have sucked it up and gone about their lives despite questioning results of the 2020 election.

Will we be okay? Will we fall to fascism? Will we stain our democracy with the blood of many to preserve her again?

Who thinks what?

[BoSoxGal]

Apparently Trump had posted more than 60 times in the last 24 hours on his Truth Social account, long screeds demanding he be reinstated as president immediately, new election, Garland is corrupt, Donnie’s the most persecuted person ever, etc.

I almost wish his insanity was still on Twitter so more of his voters could see his infantile meltdown. The rat is trapped in a corner now and he is freaking the fuck out. Prosecution is inevitable, if Garland keeps to his oath. Conviction seems likely, unless a jury nullifies.

What I wouldn’t give to see that orange turd in prison duds.

[Big RR]

I'd settle for blowing his own brains out as I don't think a former president will ever go to jail--too much of a precedent (and I really hope I am wrong).

[Joe Guy]

I'd settle for blowing his own brains out as I don't think a former president will ever go to jail--too much of a precedent (and I really hope I am wrong).

I wouldn't mind seeing Trump have a Jeffrey Epstein-ism.

[Bicycle Bill]

... I don't think a former president will ever go to jail--too much of a precedent (and I really hope I am wrong).

We never had a president as nutzy-cuckoo as Trump, either.  One precedent deserves the other.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

How sweet it will be . . . at least 81 million Americans would be tingling with happiness. And a whole bunch of gutless Republican politicians, too. Nobody wants this to come true more than Mitch McConnell.

130DC6B5-0CD5-4CB5-B199-8A84B14B1CDB.jpeg (36.33 KiB) Viewed 655 times

I like how the meme maker gave him an old man sweater to wear over his prison duds.

[Big RR]

... I don't think a former president will ever go to jail--too much of a precedent (and I really hope I am wrong).

We never had a president as nutzy-cuckoo as Trump, either.  One precedent deserves the other.

-"BB"-

Nor argument there, but I don't think those in power would ever permit such a precedent; the chance of any of them winding up in prisonis enhanced once one goes. IMHO, that's the main reason Ford pardoned Nixon.

Face it; once the door is opened, it will occur more and more; face it, prior to 1990 we had one presidential impeachment (and one close call) in the entire history of our country--after 1990, we have had three more. I think a lot of those in power would fear the same thing with prison.

[BoSoxGal]

Did anyone read the DOJ filing that released last night? Trump is TOAST. If this goes forward I cannot see how he doesn’t get convicted. His violations are so flagrant and atrocious I think even many of his voters must be shocked at this point. Or am I too hopeful?

Isn’t Trump’s best course of action to enter into plea negotiations with the DOJ asap? But he’s too narcissistic to ever give in I think. I think he is intent on self destruction.

[BoSoxGal]

[datsunaholic]

Sadly Trump has been under the delusion that being president meant he was all powerful, as he never understood the office nor was willing to learn. Unfortunately his sycophants enforce this, and his supporters actually like this about him.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Maybe the so obvious criminality of Trump has resulted in some semblance of sanity returning to politics. A Democrat won the special election in Alaska for their single congress-person; she will be in place for the next four months until November. But she beat Palin despite Trump having publicly backed Palin who was Trump before Trump became president. There's hope yet.

I still think that Lindsey Graham must have once done something vaguely naughty in a Trump hotel and Trump has the tapes locked away in his safe.

[ex-khobar Andy]

So we've been through the 'there's nothing there' and 'the FBI planted it' to the 'well I de-classified everything' arguments. Now we are onto the 'well what do you expect to find among presidential records' line with maybe only the 'Ivana did it which is why she fell down the stairs' to go.

It's always fun when the lawyers are lawyering up. Christina Bobb and Evan Corcoran may need help. If anyone here wants to go in to bat for them I want only 10% as finder's fee for the lead, or 8% if you do them both. You're welcome.

[BoSoxGal]

... I don't think a former president will ever go to jail--too much of a precedent (and I really hope I am wrong).

We never had a president as nutzy-cuckoo as Trump, either.  One precedent deserves the other.

-"BB"-

Nor argument there, but I don't think those in power would ever permit such a precedent; the chance of any of them winding up in prisonis enhanced once one goes. IMHO, that's the main reason Ford pardoned Nixon.

Face it; once the door is opened, it will occur more and more; face it, prior to 1990 we had one presidential impeachment (and one close call) in the entire history of our country--after 1990, we have had three more. I think a lot of those in power would fear the same thing with prison.

Isn’t it true that in a number of other politically stable democracies it is the norm to prosecute and imprison former elected officials at the highest level after they leave office? I’m thinking Italy, France, Israel, etc.

I do not think this has to be a destabilizing precedent. It may in fact be a good precedent to establish. Let’s not have any more fucking grifters in the White House - the sure threat of prosecution post-presidency might just serve as a deterrent.

[Bicycle Bill]

But he’s too narcissistic...

D'ya think?  Check these two stories out...

Former President Donald Trump walks in and out of rooms at Mar-a-Lago just to receive applause from guests because he loves the attention, a British filmmaker who interviewed him there told "The Bulwark Podcast."  "What Trump does in Mar-a-Lago and why he loves it there so much is that he just walks around where people are having dinner just to get a round of applause," filmmaker Alex Holder told "The Bulwark Podcast" in an episode that aired on Tuesday.

"So he will just walk into the dinner area ... there will be a cheer, and then he will go out, and then he'll go back in again, and go out," Holder added.  "He just loves that admiration."

Holder interviewed the former president at Mar-a-Lago in March 2021 as part of his documentary, "Unprecedented."  The series portrays the Trump family before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election.
(from an article posted on 8/31 on BusinessInsider.com)

and

The aria "Nessun Dorma" that Donald Trump played at campaign events in 2016 was also used for Air Force One takeoff music, said the British filmmaker who followed Trump at the end of his presidency.  "There's just one hilarious story where he actually times the takeoff of Air Force One to coincide with the crescendo of 'Nessun Dorma,' which is just absolutely outrageous and hilarious," said Alex Holder, who interviewed Trump for his documentary series, "Unprecedented."

Holder was on Air Force One for an interview that ultimately was canceled, he said on "The Bulwark Podcast" in an episode released Tuesday.  But he said he and his crew got to see how Trump used the "machinery and the apparatus of the presidency to engender this image to his fans, which is pretty remarkable."

"It's almost like Kim Jong-un," he said.
(also from BusinessInsider.com)

Incidentally, Trump had also been using a recording of the aria as performed by Luciano Pavarotti during his 2016 campaign; there is at least one video originally posted on Twitter showing Trump's personal Boeing 757 ('Trump Force One') doing a fly-by while the song is blaring.  Pavarotti's widow wrote a cease-and-desist letter to the Trump campaign at that time, telling them to stop using the version because, as she wrote, "... the values of brotherhood and solidarity that Luciano Pavarotti upheld throughout his artistic career are incompatible with the world vision of the candidate Donald Trump."

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think the oddest foam-mouth complaint from the eunuch jelly's fans was

If they can do it to a former President, imagine what they can do to you.

Yeah, I imagined right away that the FBI could get a court to approve a legal search warrant based on actual evidence and search my house.

And I felt great comfort and joy

[Big RR]

We never had a president as nutzy-cuckoo as Trump, either.  One precedent deserves the other.

-"BB"-

Nor argument there, but I don't think those in power would ever permit such a precedent; the chance of any of them winding up in prisonis enhanced once one goes. IMHO, that's the main reason Ford pardoned Nixon.

Face it; once the door is opened, it will occur more and more; face it, prior to 1990 we had one presidential impeachment (and one close call) in the entire history of our country--after 1990, we have had three more. I think a lot of those in power would fear the same thing with prison.

Isn’t it true that in a number of other politically stable democracies it is the norm to prosecute and imprison former elected officials at the highest level after they leave office? I’m thinking Italy, France, Israel, etc.

I do not think this has to be a destabilizing precedent. It may in fact be a good precedent to establish. Let’s not have any more fucking grifters in the White House - the sure threat of prosecution post-presidency might just serve as a deterrent.

It wouldn't bother me in the least, but then, I'm not a politician at a high level in the country; I imagine the precedent would strike fear into the hearts of many in power, and they would do what they need to avoid it. Will we hear Biden uing the old Ford line "I wanted to spare the antion from having to witness a trial..."? It wouldn't surprise me.

As for his "defenses" I am interested ins seeing how the courts would view his saying he decalssified them, and especially whetehr he had the authority to do so. Leaving the man aside, we live in a democracy and the president is the elected representative of the people. If the president cannot declassify documents I could see a scenario where a "good" president might seek to publicize the misdeeds of one of the departments that reports to him/her (like the military or CIA), and they could prevent it by saying the documents relating to the action were classified and the president could not publicize it without being guilty of a crime. That's not a pleasant thought--the elected official should have the auhtority, not his/her underlings. But then, we will run up against sleazy situations like this. Perhaps the facts will prove he did not declassify the documents while he was president (and he could not do so afterwards) and the courts will not have to rule on the presidential power to decalssify, but limiting the executive's power in this area can present a significant danger to democracy (and we really don't need another one). It would be another step toward an oligarchy accountable to no one but itself.

[BoSoxGal]

It doesn’t actually matter if he thinks he declassified them.

They are government property and he had zero possessory interest in them. He stole them and refused to give them back and then he lied repeatedly to the DOJ about them. That alone is reprehensible criminal behavior.

[Sue U]

So I've read the pleadings filed in SD-Fla. on Trump's "motion" (or whatever it is) "for judicial oversight and other relief" and just from the perspective of legal craft, I've got to say that on the Trump side the briefs are a hot mess, while the DOJ filing is a model of well-delineated argumentation. Trump spends a lot of pages arguing about the validity of the search warrant and seeming to challenge the propriety of the search itself -- and potential use of the evidence it turned up -- and of course also bitching about being Treated Very Unfairly by all the Corrupt Government Agencies, but the relief actually requested from the court is for (mostly) appointment of a Special Master to review the documents seized to see if any fall under the protection of attorney-client (or maybe executive?) privilege and return of items not within the scope of the search warrant (although that's a different motion under a different rule with different standards, which his lawyers claim may be the subject of some future "potential Rule 41 litigation," so why that's any part of this pleading at all is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ). And in his reply brief, Trump also demands that DOJ supply the unredacted affidavit submitted to the court in support of issuing the search warrant -- although this obviously has no bearing whatsoever on whether any particular evidence may be privileged, but would likely reveal who ratted him out. Significantly, nowhere does he actually argue that the documents he was keeping are "declassified."

On the other side, the DOJ opposition is really a very professional and exceedingly lucid explanation of all the reasons Trump's motion is garbage, with the facts and the law to back it up. And of course, a picture is worth 20 pages of briefing.

But big picture, the two sides are talking past each other, with Trump focusing on being aggrieved by the search but failing to articulate any actual legal basis for the court to do anything about it. It's so much flailing and so little substance, and for this type of motion, so much "so what?"

[BoSoxGal]

I just learned last night that one of the female lawyers who has been heading his team was a One America News host or legal analyst before she went to work for him. She’s a very attractive brunette you might have seen her on FOX if you watch it ever. I can’t recall her name which is really a blessing because she is so incompetent she is making the wrong kind of name for herself. She is the one who attested and swore that there were no more government property documents at mar a Lago.

[Big RR]

It doesn’t actually matter if he thinks he declassified them.

They are government property and he had zero possessory interest in them. He stole them and refused to give them back and then he lied repeatedly to the DOJ about them. That alone is reprehensible criminal behavior.

I agree, but the possession of classified documents, as I understand it, is a much more serious crime than just possessing miscellaneous government documents, which is one of the reasons why the media is trumpeting this over and over again (although no in the media one really knows what the documents contain)--the second is because it makes better copy than Trump took home some letters, etc. (many people (quite wrongly) do the same thing when they leave their jobs and might be sympathetic to Trump--but the possibility of putting our intelligence agents at risk is a lot more dramatic and may well lose him some fans)..

Sue--I thought the same thing from what I read; I'm amazed that respected attorneys (or maybe they're not) could write such drivel, but then I recall the ass from Philadelphia representing him in the impeachment proceeding who reminded me of a first year associate from a crummy law school who had no concept of the law or procedure at all, and this guy supposedly had a good reputation (maybe those tactics (threats and yelling) work for ambulance chasers?).